This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant entered a bank in Tularosa, New Mexico, and demanded money from a teller, who complied, handing over $2,717, including marked bills and a dye pack. The Defendant fled, distributing some of the stolen money to his girlfriend and her daughter before being apprehended by police. The Defendant argued that his actions did not involve a threat of force, that money is not "property" under the relevant statute, and that his intoxication negated specific intent (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Convicted the Defendant of robbery, disposing of stolen property, and tampering with evidence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence of a threat of force to support the robbery conviction, that the statute on disposing of stolen property does not apply to money or his actions, and that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on an intoxication defense (paras 1, 6, 12, 19).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence supported the robbery conviction, that money qualifies as "property" under the statute, and that the Defendant's actions constituted "disposing" of stolen property. The Plaintiff also argued that there was no evidence of intoxication sufficient to warrant a jury instruction (paras 6, 12, 19).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction based on a threat of force?
- Does the statute on disposing of stolen property apply to money, and did the Defendant's actions constitute "disposing"?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on an intoxication defense?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts (para 23).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Pickard and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Robbery Conviction: The Court held that the Defendant's actions, including demanding money, keeping one hand hidden, and instructing the teller not to trigger the alarm, implied a threat of force. The teller's fear was reasonable, and the evidence supported the jury's inference of a threat (paras 6-11).
Disposing of Stolen Property: The Court found that money qualifies as "property" under the statute, as it is "anything of value." The Defendant's act of giving money to others constituted "disposing" under the statute, as it involved transferring stolen property (paras 12-18).
Intoxication Defense: The Court determined that there was no evidence of intoxication sufficient to negate specific intent. Mere consumption of alcohol does not warrant an intoxication defense, and the Defendant's actions did not demonstrate impairment (paras 19-22).
The Court concluded that the evidence and legal interpretations supported the convictions, and the trial court did not err in its rulings.